politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » UKIP moves to its highest ever level with Populus
Comments
-
Show me how removing discrimination legislation means that people of colour are automatically discriminated against? Please point to the legislation in our criminal and civil justice system which deems the colour of one person's skin as having preference over another persons skin?Flightpath said:
Are you as bonkers as Farage?isam said:
Ah the wise one misunderstands... Ask someone in your woe is me special interest group to explain it to you while you grizzle about everyone walking in a different direction out if the train stationantifrank said:
Since you seem to have difficulty listening, let me try you with reading:isam said:
'He was proposing to scrap race-based discrimination legislation.'antifrank said:
He was proposing to scrap race-based discrimination legislation. And then he lied about doing just that.isam said:
Aren't you meant to be clever? He isn't proposing to ban themantifrank said:
Condemned in his own words:boccanegra 1 said:"latest Farage story on workplace race-legislation" - Mr Smithson showing his bias, again. Not race based as N Farage and UKIP emphasized but nationality based. Very large difference, as he well knows.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9m3JyEQBtZY
But the UKIP devotees won't believe the evidence of their own ears, it seems.
Are you sure?
Want to bet on it being in the manifesto?
Trevor Phillips: “In UKIP-land there would be no law against discrimination on the grounds of nationality. Would there be a law against discrimination on the grounds or race or colour?”
Nigel Farage: "No."
Or wrote a blog about it, just for yourself, to keep a check on your opinions, but publish it & link to it at every opportunity ?
The issue is simple.
He clearly said he would repeal the race relations act. No law on discrimination on race or colour. On being pressed about if that was a wise move he clearly confirmed his opinion and said that this law was not needed now.
This excuse for repeal is a farce and a fudge - Farage and UKIP clearly want to appeal to all those who want to take advantage of the repeal of such laws. If you are coloured or foreign in UKIPland you will be discriminated against and have no protection. Next stop the homosexuals. Anyone who is different. UKIP's appeal is stark and blatant.
No, as per usual having blown his 'wink wink nudge nudge say no more' dog whistle as loudly has he can, he rows back 'wot me guv? No its all a fit up.'
If you agree with all that - fine. Just say so.
Perhaps Farage will have performed a useful service if at last he is open about where he and UKIP are coming from.
You are truly ridiculous.0 -
So you'd sit back and muse thoughtfully if Nigel Farage proposed a law change suggesting that Romanians should wear special badges at all times in public?state_go_away said:
and who decides which change in law is obnoxious? You are no more worthy than Farage ,I don't know why you think you are. You have the right to argue the law is good as it stands and he has the right to say it isn't . Debate the law not your moral superiorityantifrank said:
If the law changes sought are obnoxious, then of course those proposing the changes should be hounded.state_go_away said:re Farage and the change in law-Everyone should have the right to change laws by getting elected and then doing so. If we expect people to abide by the law we should expect people to have the freedom to change laws. When people get hounded because they want to change the law then its the people who do the hounding that have a problem.
0 -
IMHO my mum cooks the best Indian foodSouthamObserver said:
On the balance of probabilities, I'd expect a Chinese chef to cook the best Chinese food and an Indian chef to cook the best Indian food. It's not set in stone, but it's a good rule of thumb.Smarmeron said:@SouthamObserver
"Who cooks it is pretty important. "
Yes, it is best done by a chef, and staff who have a concept of hygiene.
Other than that, how would you know the difference?
0 -
so it would not be that hard then for an Indian chef to get a job on merit would it? without discriminating against someone of non-Indian origin who might be a good chef of Indian cuisineSouthamObserver said:
On the balance of probabilities, I'd expect a Chinese chef to cook the best Chinese food and an Indian chef to cook the best Indian food. It's not set in stone, but it's a good rule of thumb.Smarmeron said:@SouthamObserver
"Who cooks it is pretty important. "
Yes, it is best done by a chef, and staff who have a concept of hygiene.
Other than that, how would you know the difference?0 -
And some interesting news for betters considering the odds in Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, via Wings tweet: Mr Thatcher joins the SNP:
http://paulmonaghan.scot/former-john-thurso-election-agent-joins-snp/
"Mr Thatcher left the Liberal Democrats disillusioned with the lack of opportunity in his home area after decades of chronic under-investment and idle promises from his former colleague and MP, Lord Thurso."0 -
No they shouldn't. Others should be able to defeat them by having better policies. If I find it obnoxious that the state restricts freedom of speech and association, does that give me the right to hound those who do?antifrank said:
If the law changes sought are obnoxious, then of course those proposing the changes should be hounded.state_go_away said:re Farage and the change in law-Everyone should have the right to change laws by getting elected and then doing so. If we expect people to abide by the law we should expect people to have the freedom to change laws. When people get hounded because they want to change the law then its the people who do the hounding that have a problem.
The problem is that if the educated great and good won't talk about the emperors new clothes and demonise those who do, resulting in only a troublemaker being willing to point it out, dont be surprised if the troublemaker becomes very popular.0 -
and has he done that? You are getting into fantasy landantifrank said:
So you'd sit back and muse thoughtfully if Nigel Farage proposed a law change suggesting that Romanians should wear special badges at all times in public?state_go_away said:
and who decides which change in law is obnoxious? You are no more worthy than Farage ,I don't know why you think you are. You have the right to argue the law is good as it stands and he has the right to say it isn't . Debate the law not your moral superiorityantifrank said:
If the law changes sought are obnoxious, then of course those proposing the changes should be hounded.state_go_away said:re Farage and the change in law-Everyone should have the right to change laws by getting elected and then doing so. If we expect people to abide by the law we should expect people to have the freedom to change laws. When people get hounded because they want to change the law then its the people who do the hounding that have a problem.
0 -
And there we have it. The narrow minded lynch mob mentality surfacesantifrank said:
If the law changes sought are obnoxious, then of course those proposing the changes should be hounded.state_go_away said:re Farage and the change in law-Everyone should have the right to change laws by getting elected and then doing so. If we expect people to abide by the law we should expect people to have the freedom to change laws. When people get hounded because they want to change the law then its the people who do the hounding that have a problem.
0 -
Wasn't just cheap - it could be free. Break the gas mantle in the light in the nearest close*, steal a bottle of milk, and electric soup ad libitum. Only problem is waiting till the milkman delivers ...dr_spyn said:
@Carnyx has more knowledge of this than is good for him...I think that the methane was important, unlike the coal smoke.SimonStClare said:
Many thanks Mr Carnyx - a cheap, legal high no doubt and presumably as coal 'gas' was used, this practice has long since died out.Carnyx said:
Coal gas - what you used for gas cooking before North Sea gas. You drank the milk! As coal gas was a complex mixture of methane, hydrogen, carbon monoxide, etc., I'm not quite sure wat the active ingredient was (or rather the desirable one). Dr Spyn will no doubt enlighten us.SimonStClare said:Sorry, but after waiting 2 hours and a failed Google search, this is still bugging me – why would you pass coal smoke through milk and what do you do with it, after you have?
Edit: I do wonder about breaking wind, especially for smokers ...
*Scotice, communal entranceway to a tenement block
0 -
No. Not his department, but he has input into it and talking over the weekend he was certain that in disregarding his advice the new designer had "not exhibited wisdom".Morris_Dancer said:King Cole, did your acquaintance redesign the site?
I've passed your comment on, and will direct him to your blog.0 -
My point is that we each have to form moral judgements on every law change proposed. No one rings a bell to give advance warning. And yes, if I spot one I consider obnoxious, I'll call it.state_go_away said:
and has he done that? You are getting into fantasy landantifrank said:
So you'd sit back and muse thoughtfully if Nigel Farage proposed a law change suggesting that Romanians should wear special badges at all times in public?state_go_away said:
and who decides which change in law is obnoxious? You are no more worthy than Farage ,I don't know why you think you are. You have the right to argue the law is good as it stands and he has the right to say it isn't . Debate the law not your moral superiorityantifrank said:
If the law changes sought are obnoxious, then of course those proposing the changes should be hounded.state_go_away said:re Farage and the change in law-Everyone should have the right to change laws by getting elected and then doing so. If we expect people to abide by the law we should expect people to have the freedom to change laws. When people get hounded because they want to change the law then its the people who do the hounding that have a problem.
0 -
This election is going to be very instructive on who to listen to thereafter from a betting perspective.0
-
Poor ickle kippers. You can almost see the long heavy teardrops falling and smudging the polish on their jackboots.Hengists_Gift said:
And there we have it. The narrow minded lynch mob mentality surfacesantifrank said:
If the law changes sought are obnoxious, then of course those proposing the changes should be hounded.state_go_away said:re Farage and the change in law-Everyone should have the right to change laws by getting elected and then doing so. If we expect people to abide by the law we should expect people to have the freedom to change laws. When people get hounded because they want to change the law then its the people who do the hounding that have a problem.
0 -
Betfair Lab most seats - reach for the stars!0
-
Isn't it the case that most of the dishes served in British Indian restaurants have no relation to indigenous Indian cuisine ? They were invented in Wolverhampton in the 50s and 60s to cater for white British tastes.SouthamObserver said:
On the balance of probabilities, I'd expect a Chinese chef to cook the best Chinese food and an Indian chef to cook the best Indian food. It's not set in stone, but it's a good rule of thumb.Smarmeron said:@SouthamObserver
"Who cooks it is pretty important. "
Yes, it is best done by a chef, and staff who have a concept of hygiene.
Other than that, how would you know the difference?
0 -
I am all for Indian restaurants having the right to recruit the best possible chefs.state_go_away said:
so it would not be that hard then for an Indian chef to get a job on merit then would it? without discriminating against someone of non-Indian origin who might be a good chef of Indian cuisineSouthamObserver said:
On the balance of probabilities, I'd expect a Chinese chef to cook the best Chinese food and an Indian chef to cook the best Indian food. It's not set in stone, but it's a good rule of thumb.Smarmeron said:@SouthamObserver
"Who cooks it is pretty important. "
Yes, it is best done by a chef, and staff who have a concept of hygiene.
Other than that, how would you know the difference?
0 -
King Cole, ha, cheers. He sounds a sensible chap.
People checking the official site will include lots of more serious fans or people, like me, who found the wealth of results from yesteryear hugely useful.
It's a huge backward step.0 -
Maybe we should set up a special interest groups at work to talk about ourselvesantifrank said:
Poor ickle kippers. You can almost see the long heavy teardrops falling and smudging the polish on their jackboots.Hengists_Gift said:
And there we have it. The narrow minded lynch mob mentality surfacesantifrank said:
If the law changes sought are obnoxious, then of course those proposing the changes should be hounded.state_go_away said:re Farage and the change in law-Everyone should have the right to change laws by getting elected and then doing so. If we expect people to abide by the law we should expect people to have the freedom to change laws. When people get hounded because they want to change the law then its the people who do the hounding that have a problem.
"I feel so different to everyone"
"I need lots of special attention"
"But I must be treated the same or I'll call everyone names"0 -
To make proper "Indian food", you need a careful balance of ingredients.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/mar/23/foodanddrink
0 -
I suspect the UKIP revival may be down somewhat to Clarkson. Even though Clarkson probably votes Conservative, his suspension would have attracted a lot of sympathy from the anti- PC wing who might then be more agitated to make a point!
0 -
When the government said they were going to cut down on unskilled workers from abroad the Indian / Curry industry lobbied really hard, saying they could only get the chefs from abroad. Now as stated below most Indian Restaurants are actually Bangladeshi owned and staffed, and one of the minorities in the UK with the high rate of unemployment...Bangladeshis.MonikerDiCanio said:
Isn't it the case that most of the dishes served in British Indian restaurants have no relation to indigenous Indian cuisine ? They were invented in Wolverhampton in the 50s and 60s to cater for white British tastes.SouthamObserver said:
On the balance of probabilities, I'd expect a Chinese chef to cook the best Chinese food and an Indian chef to cook the best Indian food. It's not set in stone, but it's a good rule of thumb.Smarmeron said:@SouthamObserver
"Who cooks it is pretty important. "
Yes, it is best done by a chef, and staff who have a concept of hygiene.
Other than that, how would you know the difference?
So not only were the industry saying they couldn't possibly train people from all backgrounds to cook these dishes, but they wouldn't hire those of Bangladeshi origins in the UK and train them up.
*I am sure some of the most senior people (who are British) at places like Le Manoir love the idea they can't produce French food to the highest quality after been trained by Raymond Blanc.0 -
I don't understand. On nationality the whole point is to allow/encourage British jobs for British workers. On race, the legislative starting point is equality and Farage wants to get rid of it. only ambitious counsel would arguess that dismantling anti discrimination rules with nothing in their place would afford an ethnic minority candidate better protection the now.Hengists_Gift said:
Show me how removing discrimination legislation means that people of colour are automatically discriminated against? Please point to the legislation in our criminal and civil justice system which deems the colour of one person's skin as having preference over another persons skin?Flightpath said:
Are you as bonkers as Farage?isam said:
Ah the wise one misunderstands... Ask someone in your woe is me special interest group to explain it to you while you grizzle about everyone walking in a different direction out if the train stationantifrank said:
Since you seem to have difficulty listening, let me try you with reading:isam said:
'He was proposing to scrap race-based discrimination legislation.'antifrank said:
He was proposing to scrap race-based discrimination legislation. And then he lied about doing just that.isam said:...
But the UKIP devotees won't believe the evidence of their own ears, it seems.
Are you sure?
Want to bet on it being in the manifesto?
Trevor Phillips: “In UKIP-land there would be no law against discrimination on the grounds of nationality. Would there be a law against discrimination on the grounds or race or colour?”
Nigel Farage: "No."
Or wrote a blog about it, just for yourself, to keep a check on your opinions, but publish it & link to it at every opportunity ?
The issue is simple.
He clearly said he would repeal the race relations act. No law on discrimination on race or colour. On being pressed about if that was a wise move he clearly confirmed his opinion and said that this law was not needed now.
This excuse for repeal is a farce and a fudge - Farage and UKIP clearly want to appeal to all those who want to take advantage of the repeal of such laws. If you are coloured or foreign in UKIPland you will be discriminated against and have no protection. Next stop the homosexuals. Anyone who is different. UKIP's appeal is stark and blatant.
No, as per usual having blown his 'wink wink nudge nudge say no more' dog whistle as loudly has he can, he rows back 'wot me guv? No its all a fit up.'
If you agree with all that - fine. Just say so.
Perhaps Farage will have performed a useful service if at last he is open about where he and UKIP are coming from.
You are truly ridiculous.0 -
Welcome boccanegra to the PB asylum. Mind you, I didn't say lunatic.boccanegra 1 said:"latest Farage story on workplace race-legislation" - Mr Smithson showing his bias, again. Not race based as N Farage and UKIP emphasized but nationality based. Very large difference, as he well knows.
0 -
He was, quite frankly, very worried indeed. Not his department, as I said, but his option is sought and has, apparently been disregarded.Morris_Dancer said:King Cole, ha, cheers. He sounds a sensible chap.
People checking the official site will include lots of more serious fans or people, like me, who found the wealth of results from yesteryear hugely useful.
It's a huge backward step.
I'll pass your remarks on.0 -
The argument is somewhat similar to that in favour of "no-platforming" unpopular speakers at universities. If you don't bar them from speaking, you're endorsing their opinions.Hengists_Gift said:
Show me how removing discrimination legislation means that people of colour are automatically discriminated against? Please point to the legislation in our criminal and civil justice system which deems the colour of one person's skin as having preference over another persons skin?Flightpath said:
Are you as bonkers as Farage?isam said:
Ah the wise one misunderstands... Ask someone in your woe is me special interest group to explain it to you while you grizzle about everyone walking in a different direction out if the train stationantifrank said:
Since you seem to have difficulty listening, let me try you with reading:isam said:
'He was proposing to scrap race-based discrimination legislation.'antifrank said:
He was proposing to scrap race-based discrimination legislation. And then he lied about doing just that.isam said:
Aren't you meant to be clever? He isn't proposing to ban themantifrank said:
Condemned in his own words:boccanegra 1 said:"latest Farage story on workplace race-legislation" - Mr Smithson showing his bias, again. Not race based as N Farage and UKIP emphasized but nationality based. Very large difference, as he well knows.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9m3JyEQBtZY
But the UKIP devotees won't believe the evidence of their own ears, it seems.
Are you sure?
Want to bet on it being in the manifesto?
Trevor Phillips: “In UKIP-land there would be no law against discrimination on the grounds of nationality. Would there be a law against discrimination on the grounds or race or colour?”
Nigel Farage: "No."
Or wrote a blog about it, just for yourself, to keep a check on your opinions, but publish it & link to it at every opportunity ?
The issue is simple.
He clearly said he would repeal the race relations act. No law on discrimination on race or colour. On being pressed about if that was a wise move he clearly confirmed his opinion and said that this law was not needed now.
No, as per usual having blown his 'wink wink nudge nudge say no more' dog whistle as loudly has he can, he rows back 'wot me guv? No its all a fit up.'
If you agree with all that - fine. Just say so.
Perhaps Farage will have performed a useful service if at last he is open about where he and UKIP are coming from.
You are truly ridiculous.
0 -
No such thing as society?SouthamObserver said:
I am all for Indian restaurants having the right to recruit the best possible chefs.state_go_away said:
so it would not be that hard then for an Indian chef to get a job on merit then would it? without discriminating against someone of non-Indian origin who might be a good chef of Indian cuisineSouthamObserver said:
On the balance of probabilities, I'd expect a Chinese chef to cook the best Chinese food and an Indian chef to cook the best Indian food. It's not set in stone, but it's a good rule of thumb.Smarmeron said:@SouthamObserver
"Who cooks it is pretty important. "
Yes, it is best done by a chef, and staff who have a concept of hygiene.
Other than that, how would you know the difference?0 -
I was shocked to read Dr Palmer lumping Indians and Bangladeshis together but in his defence he comes from a generation that was not educated to be sensitive to these distinctions.FrancisUrquhart said:
When the government said they were going to cut down on unskilled workers from abroad the Indian / Curry industry lobbied really hard, saying they could only get the chefs from abroad. Now as stated below most Indian Restaurants are actually Bangladeshi owned and staffed, and one of the minorities in the UK with the high rate of unemployment...Bangladeshis.MonikerDiCanio said:
Isn't it the case that most of the dishes served in British Indian restaurants have no relation to indigenous Indian cuisine ? They were invented in Wolverhampton in the 50s and 60s to cater for white British tastes.SouthamObserver said:
On the balance of probabilities, I'd expect a Chinese chef to cook the best Chinese food and an Indian chef to cook the best Indian food. It's not set in stone, but it's a good rule of thumb.Smarmeron said:@SouthamObserver
"Who cooks it is pretty important. "
Yes, it is best done by a chef, and staff who have a concept of hygiene.
Other than that, how would you know the difference?
So not only were the industry saying they couldn't possibly train people from all backgrounds to cook these dishes, but they wouldn't hire those of Bangladeshi origins in the UK and train them up.
*I am sure some of the most senior people (who are British) at places like Le Manoir love the idea they can't produce French food to the highest quality after been trained by Raymond Blanc.0 -
King Cole, indeed, it's worse to be asked for your opinion and then have it ignored than just to be ignored in the first place.
Seen a few Twitter remarks, they're remarkably evenly split. For my money, the old site was like a lovely chocolate muffin, and the new site is like the same muffin, only after it's passed through the digestive system.0 -
A popular summer job in my area used to be working at a local toy factory/assembler.Carnyx said:Theuniondivvie said:
Lol, I suppose it's a step on from not inhaling.Dair said:The Jim Murphy Glue Sniffing scandal gets better.
From reports he did, to denial he ever tried it.
The latest? He "can't remember" if he did or not.
http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/news/313732-murphy-recalls-sniffing-glue-was-a-working-class-thing-to-do/
If you can remember the frenzied, wild, bohemian decade of 1970s Glasgow housing schemes, you weren't there.
Some of my friends and I were keen on Airfix plastic kits when young, years before glue-sniffing became a moral panic. My mother was very shaken when she realised the connotations ... not that we knew either, except perhaps subliminally!Plato said:I spent many happy hours painting my palms with Copydex and peeling it off. I think children have more riveting things to do nowadays...
dugarbandier said:
copydex?Slackbladder said:Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 29 secs30 seconds ago Lewisham, London
Buzzfeed: "Jim Murphy has been forced to issue a statement saying he's never sniffed glue". Labour campaign goes from strength to strength.
Put the top back on the pritt stick....
People working on the 'my little pony dream castle' line were always assumed to be affected by the solvent fumes. No idea if that was correct.0 -
Mind Your Language comes to PB!0
-
Antifrank, there is no such thing as UKIP Land, used in a sneering tone by Trevor Phillips. Farage obviously didn't catch the phrase in time, I would have told Phillips to have some manners and grow up.antifrank said:
Trevor Phillips: “In UKIP-land there would be no law against discrimination on the grounds of nationality. Would there be a law against discrimination on the grounds or race or colour?”isam said:
I agree with him but he isn't proposing to scrap the race relations actantifrank said:
Not even you can defend the indefensible. So you don't try.isam said:
Ah the wise one misunderstands... Ask someone in your woe is me special interest group to explain it to you while you grizzle about everyone walking in a different direction out if the train stationantifrank said:
Since you seem to have difficulty listening, let me try you with reading:isam said:
'He was proposing to scrap race-based discrimination legislation.'antifrank said:
He was proposing to scrap race-based discrimination legislation. And then he lied about doing just that.isam said:
Aren't you meant to be clever? He isn't proposing to ban themantifrank said:
Condemned in his own words:boccanegra 1 said:"latest Farage story on workplace race-legislation" - Mr Smithson showing his bias, again. Not race based as N Farage and UKIP emphasized but nationality based. Very large difference, as he well knows.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9m3JyEQBtZY
But the UKIP devotees won't believe the evidence of their own ears, it seems.
Are you sure?
Want to bet on it being in the manifesto?
Trevor Phillips: “In UKIP-land there would be no law against discrimination on the grounds of nationality. Would there be a law against discrimination on the grounds or race or colour?”
Nigel Farage: "No."
Nigel Farage: "No."
0 -
“The Oxford Union is legally separate from Oxford University, and always has been."
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/mar/13/oxford-and-cambridge-unions-exempted-from-terror-ban-on-extremist-speakers
This is apparently at the heart of why Oxford and Cambridge have been exempted. Just wondering, don't other Unis have "Unions" like this. I believe Durham does, although I have no idea if it is a separate legal entity, but my limited knowledge is that is tries to mimic the idea of the Oxford and Cambridge Unions. Anywhere else?0 -
The pros and cons of anti-discrimination legislation seem similar to me to the pros and cons of legislation on unfair dismissal or redundancy. Some people will argue that the law of contract is sufficient to govern relations between employer and employee (essentially where organisations like the IEA are coming from). The prevailing view is that additional statutory protection is required.Grandiose said:
I don't understand. On nationality the whole point is to allow/encourage British jobs for British workers. On race, the legislative starting point is equality and Farage wants to get rid of it. only ambitious counsel would arguess that dismantling anti discrimination rules with nothing in their place would afford an ethnic minority candidate better protection the now.Hengists_Gift said:
?Flightpath said:
Are you as bonkers as Farage?isam said:
Ah the wise one misunderstands... Ask someone in your woe is me special interest group to explain it to you while you grizzle about everyone walking in a different direction out if the train stationantifrank said:
Since you seem to have difficulty listening, let me try you with reading:isam said:
'He was proposing to scrap race-based discrimination legislation.'antifrank said:
He was proposing to scrap race-based discrimination legislation. And then he lied about doing just that.isam said:...
But the UKIP devotees won't believe the evidence of their own ears, it seems.
Are you sure?
Want to bet on it being in the manifesto?
Trevor Phillips: “In UKIP-land there would be no law against discrimination on the grounds of nationality. Would there be a law against discrimination on the grounds or race or colour?”
Nigel Farage: "No."
Or wrote a blog about it, just for yourself, to keep a check on your opinions, but publish it & link to it at every opportunity ?
The issue is simple.
He clearly said he would repeal the race relations act. No law on discrimination on race or colour. On being pressed about if that was a wise move he clearly confirmed his opinion and said that this law was not needed now.
No, as per usual having blown his 'wink wink nudge nudge say no more' dog whistle as loudly has he can, he rows back 'wot me guv? No its all a fit up.'
If you agree with all that - fine. Just say so.
Perhaps Farage will have performed a useful service if at last he is open about where he and UKIP are coming from.
You are truly ridiculous.0 -
How very rude.OblitusSumMe said:
It's just another one of those bullshit denier memes you've picked up from somewhere and repeat on and on and on as if it proves something, when it doesn't prove anything at all, because it isn't true.Morris_Dancer said:I'm amused at the way it's transformed from 'global warming' to 'climate change', as if the climate would otherwise naturally be in some kind of steady state, a perpetual stasis that has been wrecked by man's industrial activity.
Let me offer you a parallel. In 2010 the medical world stood on its head much of its advice on exposure of the skin to sunlight. Previously, exposure = doubleplusungood, and Michael Holick gets fired for saying that actually a bit of sunlight is no bad thing, because 99% of Ther Scientists subscribe to the mantra that exposure = doubleplusungood. In 2010 there is a complete rethink and it is accepted (for now) that vitamin D deficiency from lack of sunlight is potentially as big a risk as melanoma from too much of it.
We know VASTLY more about humans and sunlight and vitamin D than we do about the climate because we have millions of them to study, and we can tweak the inputs and observe the results, and we only have one climate, but Ther Science reversed itself overnight. If you had been catcalling from the sidelines and insulting PB's highly regarded F1 correspondent as a Melanoma Denier, on the basis of science of which you have no real understanding and which is now regarded as just plain wrong, you would have ended up looking both rude, and very, very stupid.
How's this different?0 -
Tories 1.48 when polling 29%. Just imagine how short they'll go if they get back into the 30s.0
-
White men cant jump
...or cook Chinese or Indian food0 -
Christ Labour out to 3.15 on Betfair most seats.0
-
White men can't wok?isam said:White men cant jump
...or cook Chinese or Indian food0 -
Ed West has an article on this. One point he makes is that these laws don't prevent discrimination. They just relabel it.Sean_F said:The pros and cons of anti-discrimination legislation seem similar to me to the pros and cons of legislation on unfair dismissal or redundancy. Some people will argue that the law of contract is sufficient to govern relations between employer and employee (essentially where organisations like the IEA are coming from). The prevailing view is that additional statutory protection is required.
"That is one of the reasons why discrimination laws are perhaps unnecessary – because they are generally ineffective at protecting the disadvantaged. Unless you only allow blank CVs and ban interviews, and enforce equality of outcomes, they will always find a way to make decisions based on discriminatory factors. They might unfairly advantage someone because of their voice or their background or – the biggest but least mentioned form of discrimination – their looks."
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/03/the-abolition-of-anti-discrimination-laws-would-prove-how-tolerant-britain-had-become/
0 -
Apologies, Thaddeus, but I am going to plagiarise that comment.Morris_Dancer said:King Cole, indeed, it's worse to be asked for your opinion and then have it ignored than just to be ignored in the first place.
Seen a few Twitter remarks, they're remarkably evenly split. For my money, the old site was like a lovely chocolate muffin, and the new site is like the same muffin, only after it's passed through the digestive system.
0 -
What sort of investment does he expect the SNP to provide? The problem Caithness has it is a very long way from Inverness let alone Glasgow or Edinburgh. I can't see it becoming an economic hotbed under any government any time soonCarnyx said:And some interesting news for betters considering the odds in Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, via Wings tweet: Mr Thatcher joins the SNP:
http://paulmonaghan.scot/former-john-thurso-election-agent-joins-snp/
"Mr Thatcher left the Liberal Democrats disillusioned with the lack of opportunity in his home area after decades of chronic under-investment and idle promises from his former colleague and MP, Lord Thurso."0 -
The irony being that Phillips has made a lucrative career out of his skin colour.MikeK said:
Antifrank, there is no such thing as UKIP Land, used in a sneering tone by Trevor Phillips. Farage obviously didn't catch the phrase in time, I would have told Phillips to have some manners and grow up.antifrank said:
Trevor Phillips: “In UKIP-land there would be no law against discrimination on the grounds of nationality. Would there be a law against discrimination on the grounds or race or colour?”isam said:
I agree with him but he isn't proposing to scrap the race relations actantifrank said:
Not even you can defend the indefensible. So you don't try.isam said:
Ah the wise one misunderstands... Ask someone in your woe is me special interest group to explain it to you while you grizzle about everyone walking in a different direction out if the train stationantifrank said:
Since you seem to have difficulty listening, let me try you with reading:isam said:
'He was proposing to scrap race-based discrimination legislation.'antifrank said:
He was proposing to scrap race-based discrimination legislation. And then he lied about doing just that.isam said:
Aren't you meant to be clever? He isn't proposing to ban themantifrank said:
Condemned in his own words:boccanegra 1 said:"latest Farage story on workplace race-legislation" - Mr Smithson showing his bias, again. Not race based as N Farage and UKIP emphasized but nationality based. Very large difference, as he well knows.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9m3JyEQBtZY
But the UKIP devotees won't believe the evidence of their own ears, it seems.
Are you sure?
Want to bet on it being in the manifesto?
Trevor Phillips: “In UKIP-land there would be no law against discrimination on the grounds of nationality. Would there be a law against discrimination on the grounds or race or colour?”
Nigel Farage: "No."
Nigel Farage: "No."
0 -
I find both equally obnoxious. Anti-discrimination legislation is there for a reason: to give those who are discriminated against on irrelevant grounds a remedy and to send out a clear signal about one of our values i.e. that people should be treated on their merits and not on some irrelevant characteristic such as one they are borne with (sex/race/sexuality etc).Sean_F said:
There of course is the double standard in these things. Repealing anti-discrimination legislation is considered outrageous. Ethnic quotas or all-women shortlists are considered legitimate.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Antifrank, it's worth pointing out Sadiq Khan wants quotas for ethnic minorities, and there has been muttering of all-minority shortlists for constituencies.
It'd be nice if the same opprobrium currently heaped upon Farage were equally piled upon Khan.
We do not yet live in heaven on earth where no such laws are needed because nothing like this would ever happen. There is a libertarian argument against such laws i.e. that the state has no business interfering in private choices but that does not seem to me to be the basis of Farage's arguments. It's not an argument I share.
What does seem worrying to me is why so many people (I'm not talking about PB'ers necessarily) seem so keen on the idea of repealing anti-discrimination laws. Is it because they're all secretly libertarian? Or because they would like to be able to discriminate? Or just because they like approving of something that shocks/upsets others? Or what?0 -
Scrapheap_as_was said:
Betfair Lab most seats - reach for the stars!
Great 'innit.Pulpstar said:Christ Labour out to 3.15 on Betfair most seats.
I could buy a few Lab and either get £15 if Lab win or nearly £800 if the blue heroes get most seats.
The force is not with ed....0 -
Mr. Lilburne, in reference to the new F1 site?
To be honest, I'm thinking of copying and pasting it into my list of things for Sir Edric to say at a future date.0 -
Based on my discussions with employers, I suspect it's because some of them dislike having their employment decisions second-guessed, and being potentially subject to litigation.Cyclefree said:Sean_F said:
There of course is the double standard in these things. Repealing anti-discrimination legislation is considered outrageous. Ethnic quotas or all-women shortlists are considered legitimate.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Antifrank, it's worth pointing out Sadiq Khan wants quotas for ethnic minorities, and there has been muttering of all-minority shortlists for constituencies.
It'd be nice if the same opprobrium currently heaped upon Farage were equally piled upon Khan.
What does seem worrying to me is why so many people (I'm not talking about PB'ers necessarily) seem so keen on the idea of repealing anti-discrimination laws. Is it because they're all secretly libertarian? Or because they would like to be able to discriminate? Or just because they like approving of something that shocks/upsets others? Or what?
0 -
It's what happens when you lose ~ 1.5% of the vote and ~ 4-5% of the seats. AKA Scotland.Scrapheap_as_was said:Scrapheap_as_was said:Betfair Lab most seats - reach for the stars!
Great 'innit.Pulpstar said:Christ Labour out to 3.15 on Betfair most seats.
I could buy a few Lab and either get £15 if Lab win or nearly £800 if the blue heroes get most seats.
The force is not with ed....0 -
Labour price is just silly now.
Have greened up.0 -
Not sure I agree. If a white person was a highly skilled Indian chef, and could do the job well, I would consider it unjust if he or she was ruled out of applying for the job purely on grounds of ethnic origin. What we're really talking about here, it seems to me, is aesthetics: it's ok to discriminate based on race in ethnic restaurants just to give them a consistent feel and look.Sean_F said:
Well, I think when people go to a Chinese or Indian restaurant they'd expect to be served by Chinese or Indian staff. That seems a reasonable exemption from anti-discrimination legislation.isam said:
Why should Chinese and Indian restaurants have staff of those origins? British hotels and restaurants employ foreigners all the timeSean_F said:Neil said:
Anti discrimination legislation allows many forms of exemptions or exceptions where they can be reasonable justified. I would describe this more as common sense than double standards.Sean_F said:
There of course is the double standard in these things. Repealing anti-discrimination legislation is considered outrageous. Ethnic quotas or all-women shortlists are considered legitimate.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Antifrank, it's worth pointing out Sadiq Khan wants quotas for ethnic minorities, and there has been muttering of all-minority shortlists for constituencies.
It'd be nice if the same opprobrium currently heaped upon Farage were equally piled upon Khan.
Yes, indeed. Things like allowing Chinese or Indian restaurants to stipulate that staff be of Chinese or Indian origin. I think Sadiq Khan's proposals for ethnic quotas go a long way beyond that.Neil said:
Anti discrimination legislation allows many forms of exemptions or exceptions where they can be reasonable justified. I would describe this more as common sense than double standards.Sean_F said:
There of course is the double standard in these things. Repealing anti-discrimination legislation is considered outrageous. Ethnic quotas or all-women shortlists are considered legitimate.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Antifrank, it's worth pointing out Sadiq Khan wants quotas for ethnic minorities, and there has been muttering of all-minority shortlists for constituencies.
It'd be nice if the same opprobrium currently heaped upon Farage were equally piled upon Khan.
I can understand that argument, but I'm not sure I'm ok with it. On the other hand, I struggle with historic period dramas where they feel they have to insert ethnic minority actors in an a-historical context, just to meet a policy, quota or to avoid accusations of prejudice. That seems ridiculous.0 -
@GuidoFawkes: So @Ed_Miliband launched Labour Arts policy at Battersea Arts Centre 24 February. Currently in flames. Son of Gordon? http://t.co/dBsawPjs520
-
Casino_Royale said:
Not to mention the row about Pakistani hobbits.Sean_F said:
Not sure I agree. If a white person was a highly skilled Indian chef, and could do the job well, I would consider it unjust if he or she was ruled out of applying for the job purely on grounds of ethnic origin. What we're really talking about here, it seems to me, is aesthetics: it's ok to discriminate based on race in ethnic restaurants just to give them a consistent feel and look.isam said:
Well, I think when people go to a Chinese or Indian restaurant they'd expect to be served by Chinese or Indian staff. That seems a reasonable exemption from anti-discrimination legislation.Sean_F said:Neil said:
Anti discrimination legislation allows many forms of exemptions or exceptions where they can be reasonable justified. I would describe this more as common sense than double standards.Sean_F said:
There of course is the double standard in these things. Repealing anti-discrimination legislation is considered outrageous. Ethnic quotas or all-women shortlists are considered legitimate.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Antifrank, it's worth pointing out Sadiq Khan wants quotas for ethnic minorities, and there has been muttering of all-minority shortlists for constituencies.
It'd be nice if the same opprobrium currently heaped upon Farage were equally piled upon Khan.
blockquote>Neil said:
Anti discrimination legislation allows many forms of exemptions or exceptions where they can be reasonable justified. I would describe this more as common sense than double standards.Sean_F said:
There of course is the double standard in these things. Repealing anti-discrimination legislation is considered outrageous. Ethnic quotas or all-women shortlists are considered legitimate.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Antifrank, it's worth pointing out Sadiq Khan wants quotas for ethnic minorities, and there has been muttering of all-minority shortlists for constituencies.
It'd be nice if the same opprobrium currently heaped upon Farage were equally piled upon Khan.
Why should Chinese and Indian restaurants have staff of those origins? British hotels and restaurants employ foreigners all the time
I can understand that argument, but I'm not sure I'm ok with it. On the other hand, I struggle with historic period dramas where they feel they have to insert ethnic minority actors in an a-historical context, just to meet a policy, quota or to avoid accusations of prejudice. That seems ridiculous.0 -
So far this month, the Conservatives have led in eight polls, and Labour have also led in eight. That's definitely a shift to the Tories, compared to previous months, but you're right that it doesn't justify current prices.Pulpstar said:
Very sensible.TGOHF said:Labour price is just silly now.
Have greened up.0 -
Labour isn't Wokking?FrancisUrquhart said:
White men can't wok?isam said:White men cant jump
...or cook Chinese or Indian food
Sorry...0 -
They can invent *how* to jump however:isam said:White men cant jump
...or cook Chinese or Indian food
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id4W6VA0uLc0 -
The constituency? Off the top of my head -Garethofthevale said:
What sort of investment does he expect the SNP to provide? The problem Caithness has it is a very long way from Inverness let alone Glasgow or Edinburgh. I can't see it becoming an economic hotbed under any government any time soonCarnyx said:And some interesting news for betters considering the odds in Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, via Wings tweet: Mr Thatcher joins the SNP:
http://paulmonaghan.scot/former-john-thurso-election-agent-joins-snp/
"Mr Thatcher left the Liberal Democrats disillusioned with the lack of opportunity in his home area after decades of chronic under-investment and idle promises from his former colleague and MP, Lord Thurso."
Nigg yard (the one on the Cromarty Firth), for one thing. Yes, part of the oil industry badly battered by the Coalition's tax policies in recent years and months.
Wind power. Directly and indirectly, for another.
APD affecting tourism.
Crown Office (being backtracked on by the Treasury if recent reports are any guide).
But a look at the press release suggests wider issues such as land ownership and management.
Will be interesting to see what happens. Remember, it doesn't have to turn it into central London, just be better than what has happened.
0 -
I can't find the article, but I seem to recall an interview, I think with Mr Phillips where he said something along the lines of: ' discrimination in the UK today isn't anti one group, it more people preferring to hire applicants like themselves.' So middle-class, or southern, or evangelical, or muslim, or a cousin etc.Cyclefree said:
I find both equally obnoxious. Anti-discrimination legislation is there for a reason: to give those who are discriminated against on irrelevant grounds a remedy and to send out a clear signal about one of our values i.e. that people should be treated on their merits and not on some irrelevant characteristic such as one they are borne with (sex/race/sexuality etc)Sean_F said:
There of course is the double standard in these things. Repealing anti-discrimination legislation is considered outrageous. Ethnic quotas or all-women shortlists are considered legitimate.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Antifrank, it's worth pointing out Sadiq Khan wants quotas for ethnic minorities, and there has been muttering of all-minority shortlists for constituencies.
It'd be nice if the same opprobrium currently heaped upon Farage were equally piled upon Khan.
0 -
Personally I've gone to £0.00 on Lab votes, Lab seats but letting the Ed PM bets run as I think there is a stonking middle with Tory seats, Ed PM.0
-
Glue Labour, Glue Danger.
http://order-order.com/2015/03/13/glue-labour-glue-danger/
Great headline on Guido on Murphy Glue Gate.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmW-ScmGRMA0 -
There is a river in Egypt and you have just discovered it source.MikeK said:
Antifrank, there is no such thing as UKIP Land, used in a sneering tone by Trevor Phillips. Farage obviously didn't catch the phrase in time, I would have told Phillips to have some manners and grow up.antifrank said:
Trevor Phillips: “In UKIP-land there would be no law against discrimination on the grounds of nationality. Would there be a law against discrimination on the grounds or race or colour?”isam said:
I agree with him but he isn't proposing to scrap the race relations actantifrank said:
Not even you can defend the indefensible. So you don't try.isam said:
Ah the wise one misunderstands... Ask someone in your woe is me special interest group to explain it to you while you grizzle about everyone walking in a different direction out if the train stationantifrank said:
Since you seem to have difficulty listening, let me try you with reading:isam said:
'He was proposing to scrap race-based discrimination legislation.'antifrank said:
He was proposing to scrap race-based discrimination legislation. And then he lied about doing just that.isam said:
Aren't you meant to be clever? He isn't proposing to ban themantifrank said:
Condemned in his own words:boccanegra 1 said:"latest Farage story on workplace race-legislation" - Mr Smithson showing his bias, again. Not race based as N Farage and UKIP emphasized but nationality based. Very large difference, as he well knows.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9m3JyEQBtZY
But the UKIP devotees won't believe the evidence of their own ears, it seems.
Are you sure?
Want to bet on it being in the manifesto?
Trevor Phillips: “In UKIP-land there would be no law against discrimination on the grounds of nationality. Would there be a law against discrimination on the grounds or race or colour?”
Nigel Farage: "No."
Nigel Farage: "No."
0 -
Ishmael X: science - particularly food science and medicine - is replete with such examples. Let's not forget: that smoking tobacco was recommended by doctors for loosening phlegm; that butter was good and natural, then terrible (only eat margarine), then margarine kills you, then butter (particularly from grass fed cows) is excellent for you; that low fat high carb diets were good for you and cholesterol was awful, now there is no link between cholesterol intake and blood levels when controlled for calories, and high carb diets are associated with diabetes and weight gain, whereas 'good' fats are nutritionally vital, help satiation and even fight obesity. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. Nothing is settled in science.Ishmael_X said:
How very rude.OblitusSumMe said:
It's just another one of those bullshit denier memes you've picked up from somewhere and repeat on and on and on as if it proves something, when it doesn't prove anything at all, because it isn't true.Morris_Dancer said:I'm amused at the way it's transformed from 'global warming' to 'climate change', as if the climate would otherwise naturally be in some kind of steady state, a perpetual stasis that has been wrecked by man's industrial activity.
Let me offer you a parallel. In 2010 the medical world stood on its head much of its advice on exposure of the skin to sunlight. Previously, exposure = doubleplusungood, and Michael Holick gets fired for saying that actually a bit of sunlight is no bad thing, because 99% of Ther Scientists subscribe to the mantra that exposure = doubleplusungood. In 2010 there is a complete rethink and it is accepted (for now) that vitamin D deficiency from lack of sunlight is potentially as big a risk as melanoma from too much of it.
We know VASTLY more about humans and sunlight and vitamin D than we do about the climate because we have millions of them to study, and we can tweak the inputs and observe the results, and we only have one climate, but Ther Science reversed itself overnight. If you had been catcalling from the sidelines and insulting PB's highly regarded F1 correspondent as a Melanoma Denier, on the basis of science of which you have no real understanding and which is now regarded as just plain wrong, you would have ended up looking both rude, and very, very stupid.
How's this different?0 -
I think there's a natural tendency to hire people that are like oneself.anotherDave said:
I can't find the article, but I seem to recall an interview, I think with Mr Phillips where he said something along the lines of: ' discrimination in the UK today isn't anti one group, it more people preferring to hire applicants like themselves.' So middle-class, or southern, or evangelical, or muslim, or a cousin etc.Cyclefree said:
I find both equally obnoxious. Anti-discrimination legislation is there for a reason: to give those who are discriminated against on irrelevant grounds a remedy and to send out a clear signal about one of our values i.e. that people should be treated on their merits and not on some irrelevant characteristic such as one they are borne with (sex/race/sexuality etc)Sean_F said:
There of course is the double standard in these things. Repealing anti-discrimination legislation is considered outrageous. Ethnic quotas or all-women shortlists are considered legitimate.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Antifrank, it's worth pointing out Sadiq Khan wants quotas for ethnic minorities, and there has been muttering of all-minority shortlists for constituencies.
It'd be nice if the same opprobrium currently heaped upon Farage were equally piled upon Khan.
0 -
UKIP do sometimes remind me of people who like the freedom of saying the unsayable and shocking others ("I don't like Romanian men next door." "Too many foreign voices on the train" etc) but don't like it when others use their freedom to say that what UKIP is saying is horrible or repellent or just plain oafish etc.
They are not the only group around whose approach to these matters is 1. We can say what we like and 2. How dare you say that.0 -
Latest ARSE with added APLOMB 2015 General Election & "JackW Dozen" Projection Countdown :
15 hours 15 minutes 15 seconds0 -
I like this comment:dr_spyn said:Glue Labour, Glue Danger.
http://order-order.com/2015/03/13/glue-labour-glue-danger/
Great headline on Guido on Murphy Glue Gate.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmW-ScmGRMA
"Condelfan guff • an hour ago
The bookies know, follow the money.
I put a big wedge last year on Ukip getting the most seats, at 100/1
On Tuesday, checked bookies and it was 90/1
Today it's 33/1.
I wonder if this fact gets reported anywhere ?
Bookies know what's happening this week, seen Ukip getting to the tipping point
I don't usually promote gambling, but..."0 -
Before ethnic lobby groups got to him, http://m.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/tony-abbott-says-proposed-racial-discrimination-act-changes-wont-be-revived/story-fn59niix-1227015125755, Tony Abbott intended to repeal elements of Australia's Racial Discrimination Act, in particular Section 18C.
Free speech is a great British tradition and ultimately the British government is there to serve the British people. Free speech and British jobs for British workers.0 -
I understood Mr. Farage's point not to be that there is no racism in society, but that it was not prevalent to the extent that the power of the state needs to be brought in to protect people from it. It is a weak argument, but it is the only one that can be honestly argued. It would certainly be better than the false claim by Farage that he was only talking about nationality.antifrank said:
Except that it's manifestly untrue. The leader of a party that's only just had to sack a councillor who had a problem with "negroes" because "there's something about their faces" must be aware of that.Bond_James_Bond said:
God knows I'm no fan of the arse Farage, but what he said and the context in which he said it support constructions other than the one you're putting on it.
For example, suppose he had been asked if there should be laws against witchcraft. He would have said No to that as well. This could be because he thinks witchcraft should be tolerated, but it could also be because he thinks 1/ it does not actually exist and 2/ that having laws that assert otherwise encourages the burning of old ladies who own cats.
AIUI Farage had previously said that he didn't think there was any racism left in this country. You needn't agree with him to follow why he'd then say we don't need the laws.
It seems to me that UKIP and their supporters have been caught in a blind spot over this incident. The coverage of Farage has generally been so distorted and misleading that they have always had a ready counter-argument that the media has been twisting his words. For example, in the Labour Uncut article linked by another commenter below, he was accused of blaming traffic on immigrants, when he actually blamed it on the overall scale of immigration. But in this latest incident, they have rushed to use that defence, even though it is clear as day that Farage was asked whether he would get rid of race-based discrimination laws, and he said he would.0 -
Black men can't Balti....0
-
I wonder whether some of their concerns would not be allayed by having caps on damages or at least limiting the damages payable to actual economic harm caused.Sean_F said:
Based on my discussions with employers, I suspect it's because some of them dislike having their employment decisions second-guessed, and being potentially subject to litigation.Cyclefree said:Sean_F said:
There of course is the double standard in these things. Repealing anti-discrimination legislation is considered outrageous. Ethnic quotas or all-women shortlists are considered legitimate.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Antifrank, it's worth pointing out Sadiq Khan wants quotas for ethnic minorities, and there has been muttering of all-minority shortlists for constituencies.
It'd be nice if the same opprobrium currently heaped upon Farage were equally piled upon Khan.
What does seem worrying to me is why so many people (I'm not talking about PB'ers necessarily) seem so keen on the idea of repealing anti-discrimination laws. Is it because they're all secretly libertarian? Or because they would like to be able to discriminate? Or just because they like approving of something that shocks/upsets others? Or what?
0 -
That's right, of course, but what the sun exposure thing had in common with warmism, and not with your other examples, was the doctrinaire intolerance based on a supposed scientific consensus, resulting in witch hunts and sackings. After the Holick sacking (he is a seriously, seriously distinguished scientist) I find it impossible to think there are no climate scientists who are keeping quiet for fear of losing their careers.MTimT said:
Ishmael X: science - particularly food science and medicine - is replete with such examples. Let's not forget: that smoking tobacco was recommended by doctors for loosening phlegm; that butter was good and natural, then terrible (only eat margarine), then margarine kills you, then butter (particularly from grass fed cows) is excellent for you; that low fat high carb diets were good for you and cholesterol was awful, now there is no link between cholesterol intake and blood levels when controlled for calories, and high carb diets are associated with diabetes and weight gain, whereas 'good' fats are nutritionally vital, help satiation and even fight obesity. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. Nothing is settled in science.Ishmael_X said:
How very rude.OblitusSumMe said:
It's just another one of those bullshit denier memes you've picked up from somewhere and repeat on and on and on as if it proves something, when it doesn't prove anything at all, because it isn't true.Morris_Dancer said:I'm amused at the way it's transformed from 'global warming' to 'climate change', as if the climate would otherwise naturally be in some kind of steady state, a perpetual stasis that has been wrecked by man's industrial activity.
Let me offer you a parallel. In 2010 the medical world stood on its head much of its advice on exposure of the skin to sunlight. Previously, exposure = doubleplusungood, and Michael Holick gets fired for saying that actually a bit of sunlight is no bad thing, because 99% of Ther Scientists subscribe to the mantra that exposure = doubleplusungood. In 2010 there is a complete rethink and it is accepted (for now) that vitamin D deficiency from lack of sunlight is potentially as big a risk as melanoma from too much of it.
We know VASTLY more about humans and sunlight and vitamin D than we do about the climate because we have millions of them to study, and we can tweak the inputs and observe the results, and we only have one climate, but Ther Science reversed itself overnight. If you had been catcalling from the sidelines and insulting PB's highly regarded F1 correspondent as a Melanoma Denier, on the basis of science of which you have no real understanding and which is now regarded as just plain wrong, you would have ended up looking both rude, and very, very stupid.
How's this different?0 -
I think the one change they would like is if costs were recoverable from unsuccessful litigants in Employment Tribunal cases (they can be recovered in exceptional circumstances), but in general, an employer who successfully defends an ET case has to just foot his own legal bill. That's a powerful inducement to just pay off someone who alleges discrimination.Cyclefree said:
I wonder whether some of their concerns would not be allayed by having caps on damages or at least limiting the damages payable to actual economic harm caused.Sean_F said:
Based on my discussions with employers, I suspect it's because some of them dislike having their employment decisions second-guessed, and being potentially subject to litigation.Cyclefree said:Sean_F said:
There of course is the double standard in these things. Repealing anti-discrimination legislation is considered outrageous. Ethnic quotas or all-women shortlists are considered legitimate.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Antifrank, it's worth pointing out Sadiq Khan wants quotas for ethnic minorities, and there has been muttering of all-minority shortlists for constituencies.
It'd be nice if the same opprobrium currently heaped upon Farage were equally piled upon Khan.
What does seem worrying to me is why so many people (I'm not talking about PB'ers necessarily) seem so keen on the idea of repealing anti-discrimination laws. Is it because they're all secretly libertarian? Or because they would like to be able to discriminate? Or just because they like approving of something that shocks/upsets others? Or what?0 -
That's what scientific method is all about. Continual questioning.Continual revision.MTimT said:
Ishmael X: science - particularly food science and medicine - is replete with such examples. Let's not forget: that smoking tobacco was recommended by doctors for loosening phlegm; that butter was good and natural, then terrible (only eat margarine), then margarine kills you, then butter (particularly from grass fed cows) is excellent for you; that low fat high carb diets were good for you and cholesterol was awful, now there is no link between cholesterol intake and blood levels when controlled for calories, and high carb diets are associated with diabetes and weight gain, whereas 'good' fats are nutritionally vital, help satiation and even fight obesity. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. Nothing is settled in science.Ishmael_X said:
How very rude.OblitusSumMe said:
It's just another one of those bullshit denier memes you've picked up from somewhere and repeat on and on and on as if it proves something, when it doesn't prove anything at all, because it isn't true.Morris_Dancer said:I'm amused at the way it's transformed from 'global warming' to 'climate change', as if the climate would otherwise naturally be in some kind of steady state, a perpetual stasis that has been wrecked by man's industrial activity.
Let me offer you a parallel. In 2010 the medical world stood on its head much of its advice on exposure of the skin to sunlight. Previously, exposure = doubleplusungood, and Michael Holick gets fired for saying that actually a bit of sunlight is no bad thing, because 99% of Ther Scientists subscribe to the mantra that exposure = doubleplusungood. In 2010 there is a complete rethink and it is accepted (for now) that vitamin D deficiency from lack of sunlight is potentially as big a risk as melanoma from too much of it.
We know VASTLY more about humans and sunlight and vitamin D than we do about the climate because we have millions of them to study, and we can tweak the inputs and observe the results, and we only have one climate, but Ther Science reversed itself overnight. If you had been catcalling from the sidelines and insulting PB's highly regarded F1 correspondent as a Melanoma Denier, on the basis of science of which you have no real understanding and which is now regarded as just plain wrong, you would have ended up looking both rude, and very, very stupid.
How's this different?0 -
Please form an orderly queue for my bits when I shuffle off :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-318762190 -
new thread
0 -
Saw some young unemployed Bangladeshis in London on the box some time ago. They said they don't want to work in curry houses.FrancisUrquhart said:
When the government said they were going to cut down on unskilled workers from abroad the Indian / Curry industry lobbied really hard, saying they could only get the chefs from abroad. Now as stated below most Indian Restaurants are actually Bangladeshi owned and staffed, and one of the minorities in the UK with the high rate of unemployment...Bangladeshis.MonikerDiCanio said:
Isn't it the case that most of the dishes served in British Indian restaurants have no relation to indigenous Indian cuisine ? They were invented in Wolverhampton in the 50s and 60s to cater for white British tastes.SouthamObserver said:
On the balance of probabilities, I'd expect a Chinese chef to cook the best Chinese food and an Indian chef to cook the best Indian food. It's not set in stone, but it's a good rule of thumb.Smarmeron said:@SouthamObserver
"Who cooks it is pretty important. "
Yes, it is best done by a chef, and staff who have a concept of hygiene.
Other than that, how would you know the difference?
So not only were the industry saying they couldn't possibly train people from all backgrounds to cook these dishes, but they wouldn't hire those of Bangladeshi origins in the UK and train them up.
*I am sure some of the most senior people (who are British) at places like Le Manoir love the idea they can't produce French food to the highest quality after been trained by Raymond Blanc.
0 -
I'm sure that is the case. Fifty years ago if you wanted to employ someone you hired who you wanted. I suspect it is not so much the obligation to not to discriminate that irks, it is that the obligation not to discriminate is enforced by a requirement to jump through various bureacratic and expensive hoops to demonstrate that you don't demonstrate.Sean_F said:
Based on my discussions with employers, I suspect it's because some of them dislike having their employment decisions second-guessed, and being potentially subject to litigation.
To be fair the discrimination laws were not an issue until the ECHR stuck its oar in and allowed them to apply from day one of employment and not be subject to the maximum award cap in industrial tribunals as they then were. In came the shysters and ambulance chasers and out went common sense and employment chances for those who "benefit" from the legislation.0 -
I used to be able to cook Indian food to a very high standard. You do not need to be Indian to cook Indian food.SouthamObserver said:
Who cooks it is pretty important.
I wonder if there is an automatic assumption that they will not get the job due to the perception that xxxx cuisine should only be cooked by xxxx race.NickPalmer said:
I know an Indian restaurant manager - he's tried advertising in a general trade journal for chefs of any ethnic group, offering training in the cuisine (he was fed up with the hassle of importing chefs from Bangladesh) but drew an absolute blank - the number of people with experience as chefs who applied was zero. Conversely, when I was briefly unemployed in 1997 and trying out the job centre, the (white) chap at the next desk, who was a young cook, asked if he could get training in Indian cooking to improve his chances. The adviser told him to stop messing about with fancy ideas about more training and just get a job.isam said:
Why should Chinese and Indian restaurants have staff of those origins? British hotels and restaurants employ foreigners all the time
I have noticed more and more restaurants employing waiters/waitresses from a wide range of backgrounds so maybe attitudes are slowly changing.
0 -
We had discrimination in the past and we would have it in the future. The sad inadequates who behave like they do is certainly a subject for wider discussion. If UKIP feel the need to chase votes from these people then thats their problem. Your excuses for the clear racist dog whistle from Farage are facile. Well they are disgusting but you have plenty Farage friendly company there.Hengists_Gift said:
Show me how removing discrimination legislation means that people of colour are automatically discriminated against? Please point to the legislation in our criminal and civil justice system which deems the colour of one person's skin as having preference over another persons skin?Flightpath said:
Are you as bonkers as Farage?isam said:
...antifrank said:
Since you seem to have difficulty listening, let me try you with reading:isam said:
...antifrank said:
He was proposing to scrap race-based discrimination legislation. And then he lied about doing just that.isam said:
Aren't you meant to be clever? He isn't proposing to ban themantifrank said:
Condemned in his own words:boccanegra 1 said:"latest Farage story on workplace race-legislation" - Mr Smithson showing his bias, again. Not race based as N Farage and UKIP emphasized but nationality based. Very large difference, as he well knows.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9m3JyEQBtZY
But the UKIP devotees won't believe the evidence of their own ears, it seems.
Trevor Phillips: “In UKIP-land there would be no law against discrimination on the grounds of nationality. Would there be a law against discrimination on the grounds or race or colour?”
Nigel Farage: "No."
The issue is simple.
He clearly said he would repeal the race relations act. No law on discrimination on race or colour. On being pressed about if that was a wise move he clearly confirmed his opinion and said that this law was not needed now.
This excuse for repeal is a farce and a fudge - Farage and UKIP clearly want to appeal to all those who want to take advantage of the repeal of such laws. If you are coloured or foreign in UKIPland you will be discriminated against and have no protection. Next stop the homosexuals. Anyone who is different. UKIP's appeal is stark and blatant.
No, as per usual having blown his 'wink wink nudge nudge say no more' dog whistle as loudly has he can, he rows back 'wot me guv? No its all a fit up.'
If you agree with all that - fine. Just say so.
Perhaps Farage will have performed a useful service if at last he is open about where he and UKIP are coming from.
You are truly ridiculous.0 -
Maybe its because, to borrow the arguments used when the criminalising of homosexuality was repealed, while they consider discrimination wrong, they consider criminalising it a greater evil because such laws restrict freedom of association and allow the state to stick its nose in the day to day everyday affairs and social interactions of ordinary people?Cyclefree said:
I find both equally obnoxious. Anti-discrimination legislation is there for a reason: to give those who are discriminated against on irrelevant grounds a remedy and to send out a clear signal about one of our values i.e. that people should be treated on their merits and not on some irrelevant characteristic such as one they are borne with (sex/race/sexuality etc).
We do not yet live in heaven on earth where no such laws are needed because nothing like this would ever happen. There is a libertarian argument against such laws i.e. that the state has no business interfering in private choices but that does not seem to me to be the basis of Farage's arguments. It's not an argument I share.
What does seem worrying to me is why so many people (I'm not talking about PB'ers necessarily) seem so keen on the idea of repealing anti-discrimination laws. Is it because they're all secretly libertarian? Or because they would like to be able to discriminate? Or just because they like approving of something that shocks/upsets others? Or what?
I think that the difference between ordinary people and the elite, is that while ordinary people generally consider discrimination or use of racial insults wrong, its not something that (except in extreme cases) they would disown a friend or relation over, whereas the great and good (or "elite" if you prefer) regard it as a blasphemy above all other blasphemies and deserving of the blasphemer being cast into social darkness or even prison (and are actively trying to prosletyse this view and impose it on everyone as the only acceptable view).
Basically ordinary folk think the powers that be have got the whole thing totally out of all proportion and are being far too bossy about something rather trivial compared with the real concerns of is there enough money to pay the rent or buy food, is there any hope of a job or is granny being looked after properly in hospital. Hence why large numbers are planning to vote for a cheeky chappie who is sticking two fingers up at them.
And seeing people being thrown in prison basically for calling people names (racial insults) with gigantic media hoo hah when vicious thugs who put people in hospital or indecently assault them often get off with a fine or community service or the authorities can't even be bothered to investigate and prosecute utterly enrages and scandalises people.
0
?
